What is the relationship of this forum to the WAchess forum? What will be done to encourage NW chess players to use this forum? Will this be different from the efforts made by the NWChess leaders regarding the Wachess forum? Have the OCF leaders agreed to encourage use of this forum? When we see signs of their using this forum? How often will the NWC leaders be visiting this forum to see what topics are being aired and participate if relevant? I hope the leaders will discuss some of these questions here.

I am not an elected leader of either OCF or WCF but I did post a notice one of the other forums about this new one. I go along with HG that the leaders of OCF and WCF should read and respond to issues raised on this new forum. I would the USCF leaders would respond more to items on the USCF issues forun,

I note that the NWC leaders plan more use and more postings on the NWC website, maybe even some polls.I hope both the forum and NWC website will get more promotion and readers and posters.

This forum is directly administered by the NWC board (including myself as Business Manager), whereas the old forum was administered by another person with no direct connection to the NWC or WCF boards. I admit I didn't pay much attention to the wachess forum, but I will be checking this forum regularly. However, it's important to have realistic expectations. Participating in discussion forums can be very time consuming, so a response should not be expected on every issue, nor every day. For anything urgent, you should send a separate e-mail to info@nwchess.com, or to the appropriate chess club, etc. Thanks, Eric.

It has long been my goal to have a forum for Northwest Chess and the Washington Chess Federation which is associated with the organization. This has now occurred. We have moved the hosting of nwchess.com to a new hosting service that will allow us to greatly expand the website and make it more interactive for the members of WCF and OCF as well as readers of Northwest Chess magazine.

As noted before the old forum (WAChess Forum) was run by an organization not affiliated with NWC or WCF. We hope to provide better service to our members.

You are killing this forum.. by staying away.. Do you never call your friends on the phone? Do you never slap your friends on the back? Do you never want to celebrate a great game?.. Must it always be internal and private... never showing any joy?..Do you never read Chessbase,com for the interviews there? Do you think that if you never write or speak out you'll lose your chance of being as good as Peter Svidler?.. Has someone called you proud and egotistical, and you've sworn never to be open about yourself or your opinions ever again? .. Come on, it's our sport, past-time.. We have to celebrate it, or no one else will.

Now today I want to praise the NWC Foundation Forum, and especially the inclusion of regional games playable with just clicking on mychessviewer.. and especially for Drayton Harrison for the work he has put in to transcribing the games from scoresheets, and also to Fred Kleist, and to the future Oregon submissions.. Come on guys.. It's only good to share the efforts..

I was playing through a few games and I have really enjoyed the contest between Michael Lee and Andy May, two great young players. As a fan of the exchange sac, even when it is bad, I spent quite a bit of time there. I also don't have a Fritz quality to analyze with me, but I have a little program assistance nevertheless. When you make the sac it is extremely important to make the remaining pieces as strong a possible, but we try to do that always.. Anyway I ask you, if Andy May had played 27.. Qd6 instead of Ne4 would he have had a better fate than in the game? The difference is between improving the position of the Q versus temporarily improving the position of the N.. Maybe someone with Fritz or Ryba will be able to do this easily. Please share it here if you have the time.. Thanks.

In closing, I want to encourage Andy to keep up the fight.. and congrats to Michael for a great result in the state championship.

Good point about needing more local chess players to post interesting stuff on this forum.

To prevent spammers, all new users must be approved. Please register on the forum, and then send a separate e-mail to info@nwchess.com with your real name, the name you registered, and your WCF/OCF membership number if known. As long as you don't appear to be a spammer, I'll get you approved as quickly as possible. Thanks!

hgpitre wrote:I was playing through a few games and I have really enjoyed the contest between Michael Lee and Andy May, two great young players. As a fan of the exchange sac, even when it is bad, I spent quite a bit of time there. I also don't have a Fritz quality to analyze with me, but I have a little program assistance nevertheless. When you make the sac it is extremely important to make the remaining pieces as strong a possible, but we try to do that always.. Anyway I ask you, if Andy May had played 27.. Qd6 instead of Ne4 would he have had a better fate than in the game? The difference is between improving the position of the Q versus temporarily improving the position of the N.. Maybe someone with Fritz or Ryba will be able to do this easily. Please share it here if you have the time.. Thanks.

In closing, I want to encourage Andy to keep up the fight.. and congrats to Michael for a great result in the state championship.

That really is a strong exchange sacrifice. I think Black has plenty of compensation with either 27. ...Ne4 or 27. ...Qd6, but sticking with the game choice, Black is nearly winning after 27. ...Ne4 28. Be3 Ng6! The threat is ...Nh4+ and ...Qxh3. The two choices that defend the h-pawn are 29. Bg4 and 29. Rh1.

The first is hit with (29. Bg4) 29. ...Nh4+ 30. Kg1 Qd6, and White is in dire straights: 31. Qe2 h5! 32. Bxh5 Qg3+ 33. Kf1 Qxh3+ 34. Ke1 Qh1+ 35. Qf1 Ng2+ 36. Ke2 Ng3+, for example, though there are a few branches to examine.

Fritz 7 more or less agrees with the first line above. It definitely likes 28. ...Ng6. It says 29. Bg4 is best, and offers 32. Bf4! Qxf4 33. Be6+ when White may escape into a bad but slightly less certain R vs 2 minors ending. I didn't see that at all, though I don't think it saves the game for White. The combination of ...Qd6 and ...h5 hitting the g4-bishop seems to show up in several lines. There are many other complications, but apparently Black can handle them. After 29. ...Nh4+, it prefers 30. Kf1, but 30. ...Qf7+ 31. Kg1 h5 looks strong. If the king runs the other way, 31. Ke1 Ng2+ 32. Ke2 (32. Kd1 Nxe3+ 33. Qxe3 Qf1+) 32. ...Ng3+ 33. Kd1, and now the engine finds the surprising 33. ...Qf1+ 34. Qxf1 Nxe3+, which will leave Black with a material advantage, though his two knights will be a little tangled up for awhile.

In the second line (29. Rh1), Fritz just gives Black something like +4 right away. It doesn't choose 30. Bc1, but doesn't offer anything that looks like an improvement. It does find something even more convincing for Black, playing 31. ...Bb6 (or 31. ...Qf6), with the idea of simply attacking and capturing the d4-pawn: 32. Bg4 Qe5! This is all +6 or +7 for Black, so I don't think we really need to worry about which is more accurate.